Local Sales Assessment Does Not Exempt Assessee From Inter-State Sales Tax Claims, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that local sales assessment does not exempt assessee from inter-State Sales tax claims. The Bench consists of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth observed that “merely because the concerned respective States has assessed the assessee/petitioner for the local sales, it cannot absolve itself from the claim raised by the State of Bihar and the assessee/petitioner was required to pay the same.” Section 6(1) of...

Suspicious Suppliers Being From Different States Is No Ground To Transfer Proceedings from State to Centre: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that merely having information that suspicious suppliers are not located in the same state would not be ground to transfer proceedings from the state to the centre. The Bench consists of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth stated that “merely because the DGGI has information relating to similar fraudulent availment of ITC by other firms who may be related to the firm against which the proceedings have been initiated under Section...

Presumption Of Undervaluation Can't Be Drawn Just Because Of Higher MRP Rate On Product: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Hayana High Court stated that the presumption cannot be drawn that invoices are undervalued merely because MRP Rate mentioned on the product is higher. The Bench consists of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth observed that “it is also not a case of the State authorities that the invoices were different for the assessee in comparison to other distributors. Once there is no finding in this regard, a presumption cannot be drawn that the invoices were...

Amount Seized From Third Party Is Not Eligible For Adjustment Against Advance Tax Liability Of Assessee: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that cash seized from possession of another person cannot be adjusted against Assessee's tax liability as advance tax paid by him. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed “From sub-section (3) of Section 132B, it is evident that person from whose custody assets is seized is entitled to adjustment thereof against the tax liability. As per explanation, existing liability does not include...